All over Europe, laying hens are living stifled and limited lives behind bars. Recent investigations by Essere Animali, Equalia and Humánny Pokrok highlight what life in a cage really looks like for these poor sentient beings, emphasising why a truly cage-free future isn’t just desirable, but critical for their welfare.
No space to move. No access to natural light. Their bodies mutilated. These are just some of the circumstances laying hens in cages tragically experience in their short lives, in which they’re forced to lay huge quantities of eggs while suppressing their own natural behaviours and needs.
It’s an unbearable existence – and it’s one that the European Commission has the power to change, by effectively phasing out cages across Europe while also making specific rules for laying hens in their upcoming revision of the animal welfare legislation. Both are key opportunities for policymakers to put the wellbeing of these innocent birds first, and change millions of lives.
The time is now. Captured and shared by our members across the continent, these undercover investigations prove the issues laying hens in cages face span several Member States. Their problems are an EU concern, which only EU laws can address sufficiently. Read on.
Equalia: laying hens in cages in Spain
In 2021, Equalia published a shocking expose video on the experiences of caged laying hens on a Spanish factory farm. Not only did their footage show laying hens in great physical, emotional and mental distress, it also proved that these kinds of housing conditions can become incredibly unhygienic – posing a great risk to public health.
You can see:
Dead laying hens decomposing next to the living
Plucked and injured birds struggling to cope, and immersed in near-total darkness
Mites growing in eggs intended for human consumption, and pests like rats running among the birds
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has already concluded cages are unsafe, as there’s a clear connection between the amount of birds in cages and prevalence of diseases such as salmonella.
While Equalia acknowledges progress has been made towards transitioning to cage-free systems in Spain, it’s clear more needs to be done to ensure they’re truly banned from Europe’s farming systems. No shortcuts are to be taken if we want to be confident that the health and happiness of these birds – and that of Europe’s citizens – has been addressed as seriously as it deserves.
Essere Animali: laying hens in cages in Italy
In Italy, what Essere Animali recently uncovered about an egg-producing hens farm is nothing short of sickening. Their hard-hitting footage and investigative work shows a range of immoral and even illegal actions taking place, such as:
Hens being illegally slaughtered without being stunned first
Animals being violently treated, including by being thrown to the ground, grabbed by the legs and crushed into cages by workers’ feet
Eggs falsely and illegally being marketed as ‘free range’
Since the launch of Essere Animali’s investigation, the farm has fortunately been sentenced on several charges – but it’s worrying that these abuses and illegalities were able to slip through the cracks in the first place, especially as this investigation was preceded by another in 2019 detailing similar problems. Sign Essere Animali’s petition here for better animal welfare laws.
Humánny Pokrok: laying hens in cages in Slovakia
This year, our member Humánny Pokrok published the first investigation exploring the lives of caged laying hens in Slovakia. Filmed across three locations, what they found was far from pretty.
Their footage shows laying hens:
Suffering from severe feather loss and untreated injuries
Shoved together in tiny, suffocating and lightless spaces
Dying in obscene ways – one laying hen was even recorded being thrown into a garbage can and buried alive
The footage spread quickly throughout Slovakia. In the first 48 hours after it was published, it had reached one in five people, and inspired further political discussion about a ban on cages. Slovakian residents can sign Humánny Pokrok’s ongoing petition for such a ban here.
Laying hens deserve comfortable and satisfying lives! Do you agree?
Citizens across Europe have already called for the cage age to end – now it’s time for the European Commission to deliver, as well as to create specific rules for laying hens to ensure they live happier, freer, and healthier lives. It’s completely in the power of policymakers to bring about this positive change.
It’s time for the suffering of laying hens to end, and begin a new era that puts their welfare first.
World Day for Animals in Laboratories: EU citizens want to move towards non-animal science
24 April 2023
On this World Day for Animals in Laboratories (WDAIL), Eurogroup for Animals and its members join EU citizens in calling on the European Commission to step up its efforts to move towards more human-relevant and innovative non-animal science.
EU legislation on animals in science sets the ultimate goal of replacing all animals used for scientific and educational purposes with non-animal approaches. Yet, millions of animals continue to be used every year in research, testing, and education. In the EU and Norway alone, over 7.9 million animals were used for scientific purposes in 2020.
In this context, EU citizens continue to express their dissatisfaction with what they see as insufficient action to move towards non-animal science. After the first successful European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) Stop Vivisection in 2015, the recently closed ECI Save Cruelty Free Cosmetics – Commit to a Europe without Animal Testing, has again collected over one million signatures. It calls on the European Commission to end the harmful use of animals in cosmetics and other chemical tests, and to put forward a concrete plan to transition to non-animal science.
EU-wide support for ending animal testing is also clearly demonstrated by a recent opinion poll conducted in the EU Member States with the highest number of animals used for scientific purposes. In particular, the survey showed that 77% of EU citizens agree that the European Commission and its Member States should develop a coordinated strategy to transition to scientific research, testing, and education without the use of animals.
Today, we also highlight recent successes of several of our member organisations in advancing human-based science:
Doctors Against Animal Experiments (DAAE) recently won the Lush Prize 2022 in the Education and Training category for their Non Animal Technologies (NAT)-database, and launched the “AFA-net”, a network of researchers working in the field of non-animal-derived antibodies. Last year, they also exposed the severe suffering of non-human primates used in brain research in Germany, and they will continue to campaign to end this practice. On WDAIL, for example, DAAE are planning actions in 14 different German cities focusing on brain research using non-human primates.
LAV funded an in silico research project at the University of Parma focused on predicting mutations of the Covid-19 spike protein. They also persuaded the Italian Ministry of Health to financially support 16 public institutes to develop research projects using alternatives to animal testing. This year, LAV will continue to campaign for increased public funding for non-animal methods, and to take legal action against specific research projects involving non-human primates.
La Fondation Droit Animal, Ethique et Sciences (LFDA) has started to chair the Advisory board of the recently created French 3R centre (FC3R). They also recently participated in a conference on alternative methods to animal testing to explain their actions in this field. For instance, this year, the LFDA will award their 14th Prize of Biology Alfred Kastler for the development of a replacement method to animal testing.
The RSPCA commissioned a poll which showed that 77% of UK citizens agree that ‘the UK Government should commit to ‘phasing out’ the use of animals in scientific research and testing’. They also raised awareness among political parties and Members of Parliament to commit to a strategy for phasing out animal experiments. Last year, the RSPCA also organised several events on ending severe suffering in animals used in science, as well as training, workshops, and presentations on how to create a ‘Culture of Care’ within establishments that use animals for scientific research and testing. This year, the RSPCA will continue to advance their two priorities: ending severe suffering for lab animals, and achieving a global commitment to phasing out animal experiments. On WDAIL, for example, they are planning a press release to promote their explainatory video on the latter.
Draft Impact Assessment – a good start for an ambitious legislation
20 April 2023
The draft Impact Assessment report on the revision of the EU’s animal welfare legislation, leaked today, reaffirms the European Commission’s aim of making the EU the global leader in animal protection.
In the Farm to Fork Strategy, the European Commission (EC) committed to revise all animal welfare legislation, to align it with the latest scientific evidence, broaden its scope and make it easier to enforce. The proposed measures are based on scientific recommendations provided by EFSA, the European Food Safety Agency, anchoring them in a strong evidence-base.
The proposals are expected by late September, however, the details of the Impact Assessment (IA) working document, as revealed by Agra Facts, are promising for the billions of animals involved.
The EC recognises that “Societal demands are not met – As identified in the Fitness Check, the trend is clear: many EU citizens pay increasing attention to animal welfare. A clear reflection of this is the ECI ‘End the Cage Age’ …. Ethical concerns are also raised against e.g. the systematic killing of male one-day old chicks and against long-distance animal transports and fur farming…..In addition, most EU citizens expect a more sustainable food production, i.e. less intensive farming and breeding systems.”
The impact assessment looks at 18 measures to improve the welfare of kept animals. Eurogroup for Animals particularly welcomes measures to:
Phase out of cages for all species
Increase space allowance for all species
Ban the systematic culling of male chicks
Introduce welfare requirements for the stunning of farmed fish
Ban cruel slaughter practices like water baths and CO2 for poultry and pigs
Ban mutilations, like beak trimming, tail docking, dehorning or surgical castration of pigs
Limited journey times for the transport of animals destined to slaughter
Apply the EU’s standards to imported animal products in a way that is compatible with WTO rules
We are also pleased to see that on fur farming the EC is acknowledging the serious welfare issues that a cage system causes to wild animals and is taking into consideration the 1.7 million voices calling for a Fur Free Europe.
The final Impact Assessment still has a long road to go before the actual proposals will be adopted, and we call on the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and Interservice Consultation to improve the proposals mainly with regards to shortening transition times to phase out cages and tightening the rules on live animal transport.
This is a very good start and reflects the decades of citizens campaigning and scientific evidence produced in the EU. In light of the results of the Impact Assessment, the EC must seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity and come forward with strong legislation that effectively improves the welfare of animals in Europe and globally. Ambitious legislation will benefit animals, citizens and farmers alike.
Adidas called on to drop kangaroo leather after Nike and Puma announce phase-out
21 April 2023
Eurogroup for Animals and 6 animal welfare and conservation organisations sent a letter to the CEO of Adidas, asking the company to stop the production of shoes using kangaroo leather.
This initiative follows the encouraging announcements by Nike and Puma to end the use of “k-leather” in their lines.
In Australia 1.6 million kangaroos are killed each year, raising serious animal welfare concerns. In addition, kangaroo populations are already suffering from the consequences of climate change such as droughts, floods and bushfires while the methods to estimate populations are questionable.
Kangaroo derived products, including leather, are exported to various regions including the European Union. The EU represents an important market for athletic shoes, and several brands continue to produce football shoes made of kangaroo leather, also called k-leather. Athletic shoes made from synthetic materials have proven high performance, making the use of kangaroo leather totally dispensable.
In March, Puma and Nike announced they will end the production of athletic shoes using kangaroo leather. We welcome this crucial shift for the protection and conservation of this iconic Australian species. However, Adidas continues to produce and sell k-leather shoes, despite the serious concerns raised by animal welfare organisations over cruel methods used to kill kangaroos, and despite EU consumers’ demands for cruelty-free products.
Eurogroup for Animals and our members LAV, GAIA, Voiceless and World Animal Protection, as well as Kangaroos Alive and Pro Wildlife, are therefore calling on the CEO of Adidas to discontinue the use of kangaroo leather in the brands products.
Please sign petition HERE to Ban Fur Farms in Canada
Related, please sign petition demanding department store Dillard’s be fur-free HERE
You can also send Dillard’s a message via their Contact Us page or via their floating Feedback button on the right-hand side of their site
Please visit HERE to reserve your free ticket for the private screening of Real Fur: “A documentary uncovering the true cost of fur in the fashion industry.”
Fur farms are not only cruel to animals but also pollute the planet and cause zoonotic diseases.Contrary to the belief that real fur is “natural” and better for the environment, fur production actually destroys the environment in various ways.
Over 75 percent of zoonotic diseases (according to the WHO)are caused because of close proximity to animals kept on farms.
In November 2021, the Animal Save Movement joined a global movement to ban fur farms. We took part in the #MakeFurFarmsHistory campaign which included protests in over 10 countries and a letter-writing campaign to ban fur farms in Canada.
Thanks to these actions and the support of the community, a bill was introduced into Canada’s parliament that calls for a federal ban on fur farms.
Curious to learn more about fur in the fashion industry? Want to find out how you can take action to help animals on fur farms? Join us and our friends at Arise Productions for the private screening of Real Fur – a documentary uncovering the true cost of fur in the fashion industry.
See the award-winning documentary film, meet director Taimoor Choudhry, and hear from prominent animal rights leaders: Camille Labchuk, Lesley Fox, Ashley Byrne, and Jenny McQueen, who are part of a discussion panel.
When: April 25 at 4:30PM PDT/ 7:30PM EDT Where: Online on Eventive How: Reserve your free ticket HERE
And FYI: for those people who are so superficial and need to demonstrate to the world their healthy portfolios, do what other people do and buy a sports team or have a school named after you, there is ZERO legitimacy to fur. ZERO.
And for others with lesser incomes who buy “fur-lined” products, remember that animals suffer just as much for a “little” fur, they aren’t just a “little” dead. And for those who opt for faux fur, it’s important to note that many times, real fur is actually disguised as fake fur when real fur costs less (do remember that the life of the animal is priceless), please see The Guardian’sHow To Tell If Faux Fur Is Actually Real Furthermore, some items are not required to include labels that designate fur as real or faux. Just leave it out altogether.
I became vegan after watching a documentary on fur, it was after seeing a dog tortured for his fur that I became aware that ALL animal exploitation is related, the cows who are forcibly impregnated overandoverandoverandover until their abused bodies no longer produce milk at a profitable level and who are then violently killed, suffer as mink do, who are forced to endure squalor, neglect, and disease, and then who are agonizingly gassed for their fur.
… In other words, don’t feign shock about fur if you’re still eating animals, the foundation of animal exploitation fuels and includes ALL animal exploitation, if you eat “bacon”, you’re deliberately supporting animals being anally electrocuted so their fur isn’t damaged during the “killing phase” of “fur farming”. And the US fur industry (used to if no longer) reprehensibly promotes that, since they kill animals onsite, they’re more “humane” than “food farming” slaughterhouses where animals are forced to endure further trauma via transport. Imagine using the death industry as a benchmark of ethics for your death industry.
Why do people conveniently neglect the THIRD option, which is to NOT SUPPORT ANY?
Because it’s really sad that I have to say this: stealing another’s fur is depraved, nothing but selfish, privileged, greedy, and barbarically cruel.
There is a special corner of hell reserved for those humans. Enjoy the bonfire. SL
Want to do more than go vegan? Help others to do so! Click below for nominal, or no, fees to vegan literature that you can use to convince others that veganism is the only compassionate route to being an animal friend:
No one is more vulnerable than a baby, and even more so orphaned babies. Without a mom, keeping babies growing healthy and strong needs the right nutrition–usually multiple times in a day– many hands and loving hearts. To the team members here, including volunteers and donors from afar, we thank you for being the arms rocking, the voices soothing with lullabies, and the milk bar attendants whose “customers” are waiting for their morning bottles!
Dilli’s smile was so worth the wait!
Incoordination and constant paddling was the result of a head trauma for this innocent little road accident victim. Neighbors knew to call Animal Aid for her rescue. After a few days of treatment she had regained some awareness and was able to eat with help, but she couldn’t orient or focus herself and circled helplessly. We hoped her circling would not be permanent, and that time would heal.
We were overjoyed to find that within a couple of weeks, all the play that had been locked inside her began to emerge. Her ability to coordinate improved, and so did her ability to interact and play. “Dil” means heart in Hindi, and we’ve called her Dilli, watching with delight as her normal abilities have gradually returned. Dilli is all heart, and she has captured our hearts too. Sometimes waiting is the very best thing you can do.
Sweet Snowpea’s skin infection made her become shy and inward from pain. Her skin was so itchy that she had scratched until she bled, causing sores that, if left untreated, could have become fatal.
Saving this gracious, poised, seemingly reserved girl, with open sores from her throat to her toes, was no less dramatic than closing a bleeding wound. We hurried to give her medicine and to start her series of medicated baths over several weeks.
As the wounds healed and velvety new fur began to emerge, we found that all her quiet and stillness had been evidence of her pain, not her nature. Take a look at this little hurricane of fun today! Snowpea will melt your heart!
For five years, Susan, a retired public defender, has used her skills in lapidary and metal work to help animals by managing the Animal Aid shop as a volunteer, donating hundreds of semi-precious stone pendants and crafting masterpieces in copper, silver and other metals. And she does it all in the midst of caring for her 11 animals and regular fosters.
The words “thank you” really don’t fully express our gratitude.
Here’s how you helped us in March!
Thank you for helping so many animals heal last month. Every animal we rescue, admit into our hospital for treatment, or treat directly on the street is a special someone who needed help from a friend, and thanks to you, they got it.
We thank you deeply for all you do, are, and inspire for animals.
No Animal Left Behind: why do laying hens need specific laws to protect their welfare?
17 April 2023
Did you know millions of laying hens in Europe never get to see daylight? Trapped in so-called ‘enriched’ cages, these innocent birds spend their days confined, depressed, injured and sick. They’re often deliberately mutilated, too, as their beaks are trimmed – a cruel practice that causes them chronic pain. The European Commission has the power to change their lives completely when revising the animal welfare legislation, by including specific laws for laying hens that protect them from harm and honour their unique natures.
Laying hens are extremely intelligent animals. Not only can they dream and remember people, places and things, they also understand geometry and can solve puzzles!
Able to feel everything from joy and curiosity to pain, laying hens are sentient beings with striking personalities, who deserve to feel safe in the world – just as every other animal does.
Sadly, laying hens are far from being taken care of in Europe’s farming systems. Trapped in uncomfortable cages with wire floors – without access to daylight and enduring injuries, frustration and boredom – their one constant is suffering.
What do laying hens experience on EU factory farms?
Among other things, laying hens are forced to endure:
A stifling lack of room: In the ‘enriched cages’ millions of laying hens are trapped within, they have only 600cm² of usable space – when evidence shows they need around 2,500cm² to behave naturally. Due to these extreme limitations on their movement, these poor birds can get no respite from each other, flap their wings or turn comfortably.
Beak trimming: In their confinement, laying hens often get stressed and aggressive with one another. To stop them from pecking their peers and causing them injury, their beaks are often trimmed, putting them in a state of constant pain. Of course, this ‘injurious pecking’ would not even be an issue if these innocent beings were not housed in such horrible conditions to begin with. It’s brutally unfair that they are mutilated as a result of their poor housing conditions.
The inability to be themselves: In nature, hens will spend about 50% of their time foraging and scratching at the ground, and are also highly motivated to dustbathe. Enriched cages completely fail to satisfy these needs, as birds are fed from a feeder, and any litter that is provided is quickly depleted (so the benefits are short-lived).
Uncomfortable and harmful habitats: Caged hens have reduced bone strength, more fractures and bone deformities due to their suffocating lives behind bars. The wire floors on which they exist not only cause them pain, but are often filthy too, as they are not sanitised sufficiently.
Europe’s laying hens could – and should – have much better lives
Many of the problems laying hens encounter exist due to shortfalls in the European Union’s animal welfare legislation – which policymakers are now due to revise. They must not miss this opportunity to include strong, precise, and targeted rules for the welfare of laying hens based on our Hens’ Asks, which include:
A smaller number of hens being housed in the same spaces – to decrease aggression, stress, and injurious pecking among birds, as well as make them more comfortable in general
Access to the outdoors and natural light – as well as an uninterrupted period of darkness for at least eight hours a day (to facilitate comfortable sleeping patterns).
Along with addressing these needs, the Commission must honour their commitment to properly eliminate cages in Europe as soon as possible. The recommendations in our new report, ‘Phasing out cages in the EU: the road to a smooth transition’ explains how to achieve this crucial change in a sustainable, pragmatic way.
It’s time we turn the page for Europe’s laying hens – beginning a new chapter that puts their welfare first. Are you with us?
New review on live animal transport echoes our call for change in the industry
18 April 2023
We were pleased with the conclusions drawn in the “Transport of live animals in the EU: challenges and opportunities’’ review produced by the European Court of Auditors. Published on April 17, it re-emphasises the need for a serious revision of the Live Animals Transport Regulation – a bold move for animal welfare that we have been campaigning for for years.
It highlights that reducing the number and length of journeys, improving the conditions for live animals during transport, and finding alternatives to transporting them could mitigate the negative impacts of this practice – of which there are many.
What is more, the report recognises that the Regulation is not implemented in the same way by all Member States, resulting in some industry players being able to exploit the different systems enabled by national sanctions.
In addition, the report acknowledges that the quality of animal welfare during transport is not considered in the cost of transport/price of meat – and neither is the environment. The review points out that there is a contradiction between the Green Deal’s call for a transition to a more sustainable food system and the increased amount of live animals that are transported, and further cites studies that show that transporting meat and carcasses is more sustainable than transporting live animals.
Horrible for animal welfare and economically and environmentally worse than the alternatives on offer, it’s clear that live animal transport does not belong in the future of farming in the EU.
Another critical aspect the report addresses is the need for more reliable data on live animal transport. The tracking systems that are currently available do not provide an accurate read on the number and condition of animals transported into, and especially outside of, the EU. In 2018, the Commission estimated that TRACES recordedonly 31.6% of cattle and 3.5% of sheep exported by livestock vesselsfrom Croatia, Slovenia, Spain, France, Ireland, Portugal, and Romania combined. With no insight into what’s happening on these long journeys across Europe, who knows what these poor sentient beings are going through?
So far, decisions in the live animal transport industry have mostly been made based on consumer preferences and economic factors. Based on the review’s findings, and with the European Commission soon to revise its animal welfare and transport rules, the European Court of Auditors urges that they instead focus on:
Promoting the transport of meat rather than live animals, as well as the use of local and mobile slaughterhouses – to reduce the suffering of animals and their time spent travelling
Increasing transparency and harmonisation in meat labelling – for example, through an EU animal welfare labelling system, so consumers can make more considered buying choices and are aware of where their animal products have come from
Harnessing the latest technologies to track all animal journeys – so the EU really knows what’s happening while animals are on the move, and can take clearer steps to protect them.
The report adds to the pile of evidence and conclusions shared in the last couple of years from the ANIT Committee, EFSA, the fitness check of the European Commission and several investigations by animal NGOs that demonstrate live animal transport is causing tremendous suffering to animals. It should give the final push to the Commission to propose a revised Transport Regulation that doesn’t allow for animals to be transported beyond eight hours (or four hours for poultry and rabbits), prohibits the transport of vulnerable animals (like unweaned calves) and bans live exports. We believe no more evidence should be needed for the Commission to make these decisions once and for all.
Stacey Apr 12 How come the people who need to attempt to challenge veganism with “plant suffering” never admit to or watch actual, factual, documented animal suffering? We know that animals, human and non-human, are sentient and have the capacity to experience emotion, pain, and suffering, but antivegans will double-down on idiocy by suggesting that vegans cannot legitimately be opposed to animal suffering because radishes are oppressed. If you’re honestly traumatized by the thought that terrified celery cannot run from danger because evolution has a cruel sense of humor, just remember that nonvegans eat both animal suffering AND “plant suffering” in copious amounts, more than vegans ever could, based on the massive quantities of plants that the animals, who humans consume, consume. My plant-based food requires ZERO disingenuous, fake, fraudulent, deceptive “humanely processed” labels. This is just, yet again, another example of “human intellectual superiority” from the “intellectually superior species” that also believes in “humane slaughter” and “ethical vivisection”, as well as being unable to understand the difference between cow’s milk and oat milk. (The death industry is taking advantage of humans’ willful ignorance by establishing that humans are really just ignorant, ie., not intelligent.) And I gotta add, I saw many comments praising the interviewer for admitting he’s a hypocrite. Excuse me, what??? Admitting you’re flawed but not changing the flaw, is no different from the people who know animals suffer but don’t care that animals suffer. To the animal victims, both “points of view” cause animal suffering. Vegans have to stop accepting crumbs. I know we are often bombarded with horrible, hateful, cruel rhetoric, so much so that “not being wished dead” seems equivalent to “decent nonvegans”, but the animals would not agree. One more point: to the nonvegans who praise vegans for not being “preachy/righteous/loud/etc”: vegan attitudes aren’t the problem, the problem is your conscience; when you don’t want to hear the fact of animal suffering you effortlessly cause and excuse, rather than admit the “wrongness” of nonveganism, you project that onto the “messenger”. It’s like being awakened by a loud, brash noise that you respond to with anger or denial: it’s not that the alarm is agonizingly loud or painfully irritating, it’s that you don’t want to hear the alarm, and despite being the cause of the alarm. So yes, typical non/antiveganism: anything to desperately deflect from the animal suffering people effortlessly cause but, once again, could easily NOT. SL I’m going to link a couple previous articles that establish the suffering animals are required to endure, in each “phase” of “animal agriculture” as documented via exposes and predominately industry data from the USDA. I suspect that the people who need to read/watch/be educated, won’t, it might disturb their fantasy of “humaneness”, and then what would you do? Do remember that dairy farmers reproductively exploit cows and then deny the maternal bond they facilitated, and then boast that cows love to be milked (versus habit, fear of punishment, desire for relief) but then experience ZERO emotion when being violently killed. Tell me more… One of These Things Is Not Like the OtherIf your god demands unrelenting suffering and death, maybe you should invent another god NOT offended by nonviolence and least harm… Download Your FREE Vegan PDF HERE Order a FREE vegan kit HERE Dairy-Free Info HERE Take the Dairy-Free Challenge HERE Click HERE for more Dairy-Free Fish alternatives can be found HERE Learn about eggs HERE Find bacon alternatives HERE and HERE Take PETA’s Cruelty-Free Shopping Guide along with you next time you head to the store! The handy guide will help you find humane products at a glance. Order a FREE copy HERE Searching for Cruelty-Free Cosmetics, Personal-Care Products, Vegan Products, or more? Click HERE to search. Free PDF of Vegan & Cruelty-Free Products/Companies HERE Click HERE to find out How to Wear Vegan Want to do more than go vegan? Help others to do so! Click below for nominal, or no, fees to vegan literature that you can use to convince others that veganism is the only compassionate route to being an animal friend: PETA HERE Vegan Outreach HERE Get your FREE Activist Kit from PETA, including stickers, leaflets, and guide HERE
So today we’re going to talk about the differences between a SANCTUARY and a SLAUGHTERHOUSE because I’ve come across people (in denial) who want ONE to apply to the OTHER and seem reallyreally confused and say something that only applies to a SANCTUARY but not to a SLAUGHTERHOUSE contradicting their “beliefs” (ie., spreading misinformation or propagandized disinformation because NOT abusing animals is “extreme”).
A notably important distinction is that only ONE benefits animals and only ONE consistently practices a least-harm principal.
If, after the facts, you’re still confused, you let me know and I can see about getting you some helpful flash cards or maybe I can make a colorful flow chart.
“Animals are cared for!”
Question: In which environment will you find dying and dead animals who were/are mass bred and who exist in a state of exploitation for HUMANS’ benefit, versus their OWN benefit, whose “journey” ends in premature and violent death for HUMANS’ benefit and who are often condemned due to illness, disease, and squalor inherent in numbers confined and killed?
USDA: Millions of animals are “condemned” each year in just the USA because of the diseases and squalor they’re forced to exist with and in. The below link demonstrates ONLY 2 months for just chickens, page 6 includes reasons for condemnation, including leukosis, septicaemia, tumors, contamination, and overscalding (which includes being boiled alive), none of which suggest “care” but rather human apathy and cruelty for cheap flesh requiring incalculable animal suffering:
Question: In which environment will you find animals who are ALIVE, nonexploitatively, for THEIR benefit, who are not abused and not eaten, who receive necessary treatment with the goal of EXTENDING their lives versus destroying them.
“Animals get a humane death, quick and painless!”
Question: In which environment will you find animals in fear, where they can see, smell, and hear other animals dying, where stunning is often required to protect employees who are killing animals, employees who aren’t required to have any formal education or experience in killing, but where stunning often fails and animals experience excruciating and terrifying death? And in which environment, the footage of which will not be watched by fragile people who cause the footage, but of which the industry never has, nor will ever, release due to its inherent violent nature, but still calls it “humane”?
Question: In which environment will you see some animals who may be suffering from old age or disease, many rescued from “humane” farms and slaughterhouses, who are in an as-comfortable position and area as possible, with people who genuinely care about them, and who are euthanized by a licensed individual using injectable medications specifically for the purpose of least-pain, efficacy, and quickness?
“I don’t pay for cruelty!”
Question: In which environment will you see cats and dogs who are being unwillingly, violently killed, using torturous methods, for people who buy their flesh and body parts?
Question: In which environment will you see other animals, not cats and dogs, who are being unwillingly, violently killed, using torturous methods, for people who buy their flesh and body parts?
Let me explain the different format I’ve used in case it was vague: People get unhinged when cats and dogs or other “worthy” animals are violently killed, but they don’t exercise that condemnation when other “unworthy” animals are killed, animals who also all have the capacity for fear, pain, and suffering. Furthermore, when you claim to NOT pay for cruelty, it’s as if you’re saying you’re paying for KINDNESS and CARE, but you really ARE NOT. It’s a SLAUGHTERHOUSE where nothing good happens, do you understand that? It’s not a nice, happy, warm-and-fuzzy place. It’s terror, blood, screams, violence, and pain.
Conversely, when people volunteer for or donate to a SANCTUARY, they’re NOT paying for the animals to violently die, be dismembered, eviscerated, and eaten.
Please tell me if you don’t understand, I know the concept of least-harm can be difficult to grasp by some.
Question: In which environment will you see many animals who are not violently killed for human profit and where money, including donations, is used for animals’ benefit, to feed, shelter, and provide medical care for THEM (and NOT as part of an exploitative scheme where animals are “artificially” bred and rapidly grown using the cheapest ingredients?)
“Get animals from small farms where they are treated well!”
Question: In which environment will you find dead animals, violently killed and at a fraction of their lifespans, following brief existences of reproductive exploitation, separation of infant and mother, mutilation, squalor, confinement, and lack of choice, who come from all-sized operations?
USDA: It is legally required that animals used for “commercial purposes” in the US are killed in an inspection- regulated slaughterhouse. (Regardless of being from one of the four “small farms” in the US. SL)
Question: In which environment will you find alive animals not required to perform bodily duties for human benefit, who don’t violently die at a fraction of their lifespans, where the goal is their comfort, happiness, longevity, and peace after being rescued from predominantly exploitatively abusive (“farms”, slaughterhouses, zoos, labs, etc.) conditions?
“It’s illegal to abuse animals!”
Question: In which environment will you find dead animals, violently killed and at a fraction of their lifespans, following brief existences of reproductive exploitation, separation of infant and mother, mutilation, squalor, confinement, and lack of choice, where all animals are expressly exempt from the (meager) Animal Welfare Act and where ZERO LAWS “protect” them from violent death, including animals from “farms” where historically, people protest anti-bestiality laws because “cheese tho”?
Question: In which environment will you find alive animals not required to perform any bodily “duties” for HUMANS’ benefit, who don’t violently die at a fraction of their lifespans, who have ZERO REQUIREMENTS for “protection”?
“So you’re pro-life?”
Question: In which environment will you find dead animals, violently killed as infants, including calves both in utero and as young as three weeks; chicks if they’re male; fetal pigs sold for “science”; males and females reproductively exploited for AI, and mothers following brief existences of THEIR reproductive exploitation, forcibly separated from their infants?
Question: In which environment will you find alive animals, including infants rescued from the “political pro-lifers”, “political pro-lifers” who think it’s ok to abuse animals including babies because some humans have abortions?
“Animals have good lives and one bad day!”
Question: In which environment will you take your kids to see the finality of your dystopian drama “Good Lives and One Bad Day!”
Yeah, I thought so.
Trillions of animals are butchered yearly on Earth, none of whom come from “good lives” that is concluded with unmitigated fear and violence whose realistic nightmare include existences primarily on wretched places of disease, filth, and darkness. Animals are bred to be dead, nobody cares how they “live”; animals are considered disposable objects, I’ve demonstrated the delusion of “care is necessary for them to be profitable” via the fact of condemned and trashed animals.
Animals suffer for human deception.
So, folks, allow ME to tell YOU before the end of this song …
Question: Which is the ONLY option for being humane and causing least harm?
Visit, or donate to, rescued animals on sanctuaries:
The USDA recently released 1000s of pages of slaughter “violations” that proves that animals are relentlessly subjected to torture. Notably, the USDA had to be sued to release these records. Why? Since nobody hesitates to share “humane” information, the USDA acknowledges the utter failure of “humane” slaughter. Even the “quick” – and rare and unproveable – death doesn’t nullify the inherent unethical quality of killing including required animal suffering.
Globally pigs are routinely stunned using CO2, a process that is unarguably torturous; the UK acknowledged more than 2 decades ago the suffering involved but still uses CO2. It’s important to recognize that undercover and whistleblower footage is meaningful because the industry will never release its own footage based on the terror and violence required of animal victims.